Mechanical Specialties Co., Inc.

154 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Mechanical Specialties Company, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO and Grievance Committee Mechanical Specialties Company, Inc. and International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Cases 31-CA-97 (Formerly 21-CA-6817) and 31-RC-14 (Formerly 21-RC-9528) June 28, 1967 DECISION AND ORDER By CHAIRMAN MCCULLOCH AND MEMBERS FANNING AND BROWN On February 23, 1967, Trial Examiner Wallace E. Royster issued his Decision in the above-entitled case, finding that the Respondent had engaged in and was engaging in certain unfair labor practices and recommending that it cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action, as set forth in the attached Trial Examiner's Decision. Thereafter, the Charging Party and Respondent each filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's Deci- sion with supporting briefs. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the Na- tional Labor Relations Board has delegated its powers in connection with this case to a three-member panel. The Board has reviewed the rulings of the Trial Examiner made at the hearing and finds that no prejudicial error was committed. The rulings are hereby affirmed. The Board has considered the Trial Examiner's Decision, the exceptions and briefs, and the entire record in the case, and hereby adopts the findings,' conclusions, and recommenda- tions 2 of the Trial Examiner. In agreeing with the Trial Examiner's finding that the discharge of Cantrell was motivated by union animus, and violative of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, we note the following. Cantrell was a known active adherent of the Union from its inception, attending meetings, soliciting authorization cards, and ad- vocating its acceptance among employees. Early in In support of the Trial Examiner's finding that Respondent had knowledge of Klein's union activity, the following testimony on direct ex- amination of Superintendent Howland appears in the record: Q. Then after that period of time, do you recall any conversation that you had with [Klein] concerning the union or union organizing activities? A. Well, on March 12th, I had talked to him at the third Tree Mill by the grinding room and had already asked him .. . Q. Now, tell us what was said' A. This had led up to the fact that previously on the 10th I had asked him to hold his excessive conversation down I was just having a general conversation with him. One thing led to another, and I said, "Irving, you don't look like an organizer to me." He then went on, the campaign Cantrell became a specific target of Respondent's active hostility toward the Union. This occurred when Vice President-General Manager Fink unlawfully interrogated him in early March 1965 concerning the recent February 28 union meeting and the names of those in at- tendance. Respondent claims it discharged Cantrell for lack of work. We find that Respondent's asserted economic reasons for discharging Cantrell are un- convincing and pretextual in nature for the_ follow- ing reasons: For the period of his employment Can- trell worked a 54-hour week, having worked 10 and 8 hours, respectively, during the last 2 days of his employment. After Cantrell's discharge on May 11, 1965, Respondent distributed his work to em- ployees on the day shift, who were already being af- forded substantial overtime along with other night-shift employees. It is unreasonable to con- clude that an employee who had been working a 54-hour week suddenly and abruptly became un- needed without any advance notice or warning and at a time when substantial overtime was being af- forded by the plant to all employees. This claimed abrupt decrease in work is wholly inconsistent with the Respondent's contention that the business was going through a gradual change in operation, with a deemphasis of the milling machine function and a commensurate increase in the need for jig boring. In this respect it appears that several months before, in January 1965, Superintendent Howland and Su- pervisor Payton offered Cantrell a transfer to the jig bore operation because of his good workmanship. At that time he expressed a preference for the milling machine work, and declined the offer. Thereafter, when Cantrell was discharged, this same opportunity was not reoffered to him, despite the fact that Respondent was in need of skilled machinists as evidenced by newspaper advertise- ments seeking jig bore machinists and the standing custom of paying a $50 bonus to any employee who is responsible for recruiting a suitably skilled appli- cant. Respondent's failure at least to inquire of Can- trell if he would fill the jig bore vacancy at the time of his discharge, when viewed in the light of the previous offer made to him several months earlier and the constant search for good machinists, creates a strong inference that Cantrell was maneu- vered out of his job. and, apparently, he thought that I was accusing of him of being a paid organizer. I said, "That is not so, Irving " And I said all the em- ployees who are campaigning in the company for the union are or- ganizers in my opinion 2 The Charging Party has filed exceptions to the Trial Examiner's rejec- tion of its request for a monetary remedy to make the employees whole for losses they may have suffered as a result of the Respondent's unlawful refusal to bargain. We deem it inappropriate in this case to depart from our existing policy with respect to remedial orders in cases involving viola- tions of Sec. 8(a)(5), and therefore deny the said request However, in adopting the Trial Examiner's disposition of this matter, we do not pass on or adopt his rationale for rejecting the Charging Party's contentions See Monroe Auto Equipment Company, 164 NLRB 1051. 166 NLRB No. 31 MECHANICAL SPECIALTIES CO. In these circumstances, considered against the background of Respondent's opposition to em- ployee organization, we find the conclusion in- escapable that Respondent sought to remove an ac- tive and vocal supporter of the Union by realign- ment of duties. Accordingly, we find Respondent discharged Cantrell in violation of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. ORDER Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the National Labor Relations Board adopts as its Order the Recom- mended Order of the Trial Examiner, and hereby orders that the Respondent, Mechanical Specialties Company, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its of- ficers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall take the action set forth in the Trial Examiner's Recom- mended Order. 155 industry components in Los Angeles, California. In the conduct of its business operations the Respondent an- nually purchases goods and materials valued at more than $50,000 which are received at its plant directly from sources outside the State of California. The Respondent annually produces, sells, and ships from its Los Angeles plant products valued at more than $50,000 to customers located outside the State of California. The Respondent admits that it is and I find it to be an employer engaged in commerce and in a business affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. H. THE LABOR ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED It is conceded, and I find, that the Union is a labor or- ganization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. Upon the basis of the evidence set forth below, I find, contrary to the position of the Respondent, that the Grievance Committee is, and at all times material herein has been, a labor organization within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(5) of the Act. III. THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES TRIAL EXAMINER'S DECISION STATEMENT OF THE CASE WALLACE E. ROYSTER, Trial Examiner: This con- solidated proceeding was tried before me in Los Angeles, California, on various dates from April 25 through May 26, 1966. The complaint as amended at the hearing al- leges that Mechanical Specialties Company, Inc., herein the Respondent, by granting wage increases and other benefits, by interrogating employees concerning member- ship activity and sympathy with International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Imple- ment Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, herein the Union, by engaging in surveillance or creating an impres- sion of surveillance of a union meeting, by assisting and encouraging the circulation of an antiunion petition, by threatening discharge and loss of employment if the Union succeeded in its organizational attempt, by dis- criminatorily enforcing a no-solicitation rule, by dominat- ing and interfering with the formation and administration of a grievance committee, and by discharging its em- ployees, Alfred A. Cantrell and Irving Klein, has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1),(2),(3), and (5) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, herein the Act. Objections to an elec- tion are also presented for disposition. Following the close of the hearing a motion to correct the record was filed by counsel for the General Counsel. In the absence of opposition the motion is granted and is hereby made a part of the exhibit file. In consideration of the briefs filed, from my observa- tion of the witnesses, and upon the basis of the entire record, I make the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. THE BUSINESS OF THE RESPONDENT The Respondent is a corporation engaged in the fabri- cation of tools, gauges, special machinery, and aerospace In the fall of 1964 the Union began an organizational campaign among employees working for tool and die shops in the Southern California area. In December of that year the Respondent became aware of the Union's purpose and consulted counsel. In the same month, Robert S. Howland, Respondent's superintendent, re- ported to Michael J. Fink, vice president and general manager of the operation, that some competitors were paying higher wages than those in effect in Respondent's shop. Fink said that a wage survey would be made. Fink mentioned this circumstance to Respondent's president, L. M. Weitzel, with the result that in mid-February 1965, Weitzel gave Fink wage data reflecting the rates in effect in competitive shops. Within a few days, according to Fink, in consultation with Superintendent Howland, a number of wage increases were decided upon and made effective March 8. In all, 65 or 70 wage raises were given. The Respondent then had about 115 shop employees. Before the increases were announced or even finally decided upon, the Union, on February 28, held a meeting of employees coming from a number of shops similar to that of the Respondent and including some of Respond- ent's employees. Vincent Sloane, the Union's represent- ative in charge of the campaign, told the gathering, he testified, that the Union was attempting to obtain status as bargaining representative throughout the entire indus- try in Southern California, and that this would come about through elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board. At this meeting employees were soli- cited to sign cards designating the Union as bargaining representative. On March 9, 1 day after the wage increases had become effective, Weitzel spoke to the employees on the day shift in the plant. Weitzel said that he had heard ru- mors of union talk and dissatisfaction but that he felt the Respondent could solve its own problems. He suggested that the employees select representatives to serve on a grievance committee and commented that the Union could drive the Respondent out of business. Such a com- mittee was selected by the employees I and later met with Representatives of the Respondent. I On the night shift, Supervisor Walter Payton acted as chairman of the meeting in which representatives were chosen 156 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD Howard Berno, who until March 232 was a timekeeper and assistant security officer, learned that a union or- ganizing meeting was to be held on March 14. Desirous of learning, he testified, if the Union could be of benefit to him, he determined to attend despite the fact that two employees questioned the propriety of his presence at such a gathering on the ground that Berno was part of management. Although he came to the meeting with an open mind, Berno testified, he observed that some em- ployees in attendance seemed to find the question of whether to support the Union to be a disturbing one. Berno concluded from this that the Union would disrupt the harmonious relations then existing in the shop and de- cided that he would oppose it. The next morning, March 15, Berno reported to General Manager Fink about his attendance at the meeting,3 saying that 25 or 30 were present from the Respondent's shop. Fink relayed this intelligence to Su- perintendent Howland who expressed surprise at the number of Respondent's employees attending and said that he would "check into" it. With the assistance of Berno a list comprising the employees who would probably comprise the bargaining unit was compiled. Berno, upon his own initiative, he testified, indicated on this list those whom he had observed in attendance at the meeting. Within a few days, Howland and Fink came to conclusions about which of the employees would support the Union, which of them would not, and which were un- decided. On March 16, the Respondent received a letter from the Union dated March 12 asserting that a majority of the employees had designated the Union as collective-bar- gaining representative. The Union asserted that it was ready to demonstrate its majority status by submitting authorization cards to an impartial person for examina- tion and said that it desired to institute negotiations look- ing toward a collective-bargaining agreement. After con- sulting with counsel and after Fink and Howland had con- cluded, they testified that they were quite certain that the Union did not command the support it asserted. The Respondent announced that it had a good-faith doubt concerning the majority status of the Union; that it did not believe that its employees had authorized the Union to represent them freely, voluntarily, and without coer- cion; and declined to extend recognition. The Respond- ent suggested that an election under the procedures of the Board would be appropriate. Frank Isak, the general foreman on the day shift, testified that on February 19 he learned that the Union was soliciting signatures to designation cards. Isak asked his informer, employee Kirk Riegler, how he felt about the Union. Riegler answered that he opposed it. A few days later, according to the credited and undenied testimony of Foreman Isak, and several leadmen, among them Ronald Lawler, Robert Woods, and Vernon Zeman, Howland told them to keep their eyes and ears open for union activity or talk and to report to him about it. Isak testified that he made no inquiry of employees about their union sympathies but that some volunteered their feelings to him. Leadman Salvador Negrete testified to the same effect. Leadman Zeman testified that he had conversa- tions with employees about the Union and that he re- ported to Howland what he believed various employees thought about the Union. Revealingly, I find, Zeman testified at one point that he made a report to Howland based upon "what he could get out of Osdale." Zeman rather quickly said that what he really meant, was that he reported to Howland what Osdale had "voluntarily told me." It was upon the basis in part of these reports from leadmen and others that Fink and Howland came to the conclusion they did about the strength of the Union in the shop. On March 9 Weitzel met with the Grievance Commit- tee. On March 13, in a letter addressed to all employees, he mentioned the fact of this meeting and that he then learned of some dissatisfaction with the group hospitalization program. Weitzel told the employees in this communication that he was "looking into other plants, and [would] be contacting the shop representa- tives to work out a program that will more nearly represent your wants." On Tuesday, March 16, a group of employees, constituting the Grievance Committee, met with President Weitzel. Matters discussed were the Respondent's profit-sharing plan, vacation pay, hours of the day shift, insurance, job classifaction schedules, and sick pay. At the meeting of the same group on April 5, it was suggested that the Respondent should purchase a larger green grinding wheel. Other questions raised by the members of the Grievance Committee related to over- time pay, insurance, and a suggestion that the Respond- ent supply certain tools and more adequate ventilation. President Weitzel wrote a report of this meeting which was distributed among the employees and, after listing the items which had been subjects of discussion, said: We have been studying changes in the group in- surance program with the guidance of expert in- surance consulation. We recognize that changes are necessary; however, we car-not give any increased benefits because of labor law regulations while the labor board proceedings are pending. This same problem prevents improved benefits re- garding holidays, vacation pay, and other items discussed with your representatives. However, those of you that have been with us for any length of time know that we have increased wages and benefits in the past consistent with our continuous desire to make our shop the best in which to work anywhere. We will continue this policy in the future. We know that to get the best people, we should have the best working conditions. There have been subsequent meetings of the Grievance Committee with President Weitzel with similar items on the agenda. On March 22, the Union filed a petition with the Board seeking certification as bargaining representative of Respondent's employees. A hearing was held, a bargain- ing unit described, and an election directed. The tally of ballots resulting from the election on June 11 showed that of 115 eligible voters, 40 cast ballots for and 59 against the Union. Thereafter the Union filed objections to the election which were consolidated for hearing in this proceeding. The first written communication from the Union directed to employees of Respondent and to employees of other similar employers in Southern California is dated March 3. In it the Union said that its organizing campaign On this date he became personnel director The allegations of surveillance are bottomed on Berno's presence at the March 14 meeting I find that he was not a supervisor on that date and there is not sufficient evidence to establish that he attended at Respond- ent's direction. I find that Berno went to the meeting and reported what he saw and heard in an effort to enhance his standing with his Employer. MECHANICAL SPECIALTIES CO. 157 was proceeding at a rapid pace in 34 plants . Mention was made of gains achieved elsewhere by union organization and readers were urged to make every effort to have designation cards signed. A week later, in a similar com- munication, the Union said that it was nearly ready to file petitions for elections . At some other time in March, the Union distributed a mimeographed sheet which was devoted in substantial part to questions concerning a representation election. Following the talk by President Weitzel to Respond- ent's employees on March 9, in which he arranged for the creation of the Grievance Committee, the Respond- ent sent occasional communications to its employees urging them to reject the Union. One bearing no date, but obviously distributed during the preelection period, posed questions and gave answers . Responding to one of its questions , the Respondent said a union contract: Is no better than the ability of the company to con- tinue to remain in business . Look what happened to Falco Tool & Die. It had a contract with this Union but where is it now? Without a contract the promises of the company to the employee can certainly be as good as can be negotiated with any union. Both de- pend on the ability of the company to continue in business and make a profit. Without a Union the company will not have to face the threat of strikes or secondary boycotts. (where the employees of this company are used to organize the employees of any company). Without a Union we can guarantee unin- terrupted production and delivery to our customers. The security of employees in the promises and benefits that a company without a contract is every bit as good as with a labor contract. On May 12, General Manager Fink wrote to individual employees saying in part: If you have not heard or are a newcomer to the trade, Falco, Mars and Alba Engineering were large and successful job shops in the area and some years back their employees were promised the Pie-in-the-Sky and went union. As the story goes, the Pie-in-the-Sky hit the sky blue yonder. Alba Engineering lasted six months; Mars and Falco did not last much longer when they too hit the blue because these shops could no longer operate with the shop stewards or the boys from Detroit. A day later a letter from W. Lee Campbell, Respondent's regional sales manager, was similarly distributed. Camp- bell wrote that he traveled widely from the Respondent in his saleswork and said that he heard much talk from customers about the Union's attempt to organize the Respondent. Campbell said that he felt that these customers were concerned about the consequences should the Union succeed. He speculated that the customers were wondering how deliveries could be made if a strike was threatened or took place; if the customer could rely upon the Respondent to produce efficiently and meet delivery schedules; if the Respondent would not be forced to raise its charges above those of its competi- tors; Whether quality would be maintained ; and whether the Respondent could hope to compete and grow with the burden of "union inefficiencies of operations." Campbell concluded his letter by saying that he did not want the Respondent to lose its place at the head of the industry after so much effort had been expended in order to attain that preeminence, and that there was only one way to keep sales and business at a high level "by a vote of con- fidence for management." On June 8 a letter was dis- tributed to all employees bearing the signature of Alex Skulsky, president of Central Tool & Engineering Co. The letter said that he had heard of the Union's attempt to organize Respondent's shop and that although the Respondent was his competitor he would not like to see a misfortune befall it. Skulsky said that he had once been an organizer for a union and a shop steward in another die plant. Later he became the owner of Falco Machine and Tool in Los Angeles and was prospering until "a union was introduced into our plant." Skulsky then went on to say that a union would not benefit the employees and that Respondent's management was doing all that it could to better wages and working conditions. Near the close of this communication, Skulsky said: You have the alternative to accept or reject a union as protected by law and country, but the employees of Falco chose a union and found themselves heading down the road to self-destruction . Petty grievances and gossip will be expanded, all out of proportion to their intent, thus resulting in constant bickering and inefficient use of time. Todays' market is no different than it found us in 1958 and inefficiency is a killer and that is what caused Falco to die. On June 8, Fink again wrote to individual employees and, noting that this was his last opportunity to commu- nicate with them before the election, said that the Respondent need not agree to any union proposal; that when a union demand was rejected the Union's only al- ternative was to call a strike. Urging the employees to disbelieve union claims that a strike could not happen, he asserted, "It could happen especially when that union is the U.A.W. They have called many strikes- some of them long, brutal and bloody." Enclosed with the letter was a copy of a publication issued in April 1955 by the Kohler Company of Kohler, Wisconsin , describing in detail and portraying in photographs Kohler's view of the violent strike which began there in 1954. On June 10, the day before the election, President Weitzel, then being in Rhode Island, telephoned the plant in Los Angeles and spoke to the employees through some sort of public address system. In this talk Weitzel described Respondent's history and steady growth and said that a union would not be helpful . Weitzel pleaded: Fellows -if we have problems, let's solve them our- selves. That is why we have our shop committee . . . that is why we have appointed Howard Berno as our personnel manager. We can communicate. We can talk together. We can resolve our problems. What do we need a union for. Maybe they need a union at Ford or General Motors where the men can never talk to top management because the company is so big ... it is tougher to communicate under those circumstances , but I know everyone of you by your first name and I always have and so does Mike Fink. Later in his talk, Weitzel said , "In the event the union should win the very life of this company- my job- your job - all our jobs - would depend upon our resistance to any economically unsound demand." The talk ended when Weitzel said, "If you vote for the union, you are saying that I don't deserve to keep my business. A vote for the union is a vote against me personally . . . there is no other way to look at it." Beginning in late February and continuing thereafter until the election, union supporters sought to have em- ployees sign cards designating the Union as bargaining representative. The cards were simple and clear in form and purported to be nothing more or less than an authorization to the Union to represent the employees in collective bargaining. At the time that the Union 158 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL requested recognition and invited the Respondent to test its majority status by having designation cards checked by an impartial agency the Union had 68 signed cards. At most there were 115 employees in the bargaining unit. Clearly, the Union had obtained signed designation cards from a majority of the employees. The Respondent con- tends that in many cases card signers believed that they were doing no more than enabling the Union to bring about an election. In support of this position, the Re- spondent adduced testimony from a number of super- visors, from General Manager Fink and from Superin- tendent Howland in which employees who already had signed cards were quoted as saying that they did not want a union in the plant. Some of the employees attending the union meetings testified that they recalled nothing of what was said except that an election would eventuate. A few employees testified that they signed the card without reading the language authorizing the Union to represent them. I think it unnecessary to set forth in any detail the testimony offered by the Respondent thus to attack the efficacy of the designation cards, but I have considered all of it. For the most part, as Superintendent Howland asserted, these employees were intelligent and, even if they lacked sophistication in the field of labor-manage- ment relations, I am not persuaded that any employee in signing a designation card was unaware that by doing so he was choosing a bargaining representative. There was much talk about an election at the organizing meetings and at the plant. The record reflects some testimony to the effect that some employees were told that the sole purpose of signing cards was to bring about an election. I do not credit this testimony. The plain language on the cards makes no reference to an election and I find that there is no substantial evidence to support a conclusion that the card signers were misled or misinformed in con- nection with signing cards. I think that the only reasona- ble and rational conclusion to reach about a person who, in the absence of fraudulent misrepresentations , signs a card which clearly authorizes a union to represent him is that he intended by that act to get that representation. He may be aware that he is unlikely to get it without an elec- tion but that is merely a step toward a goal. One who preferred not to have a union would probably prefer also not to have to have an election and would not sign a card. Putting the matter to the test of balloting might bring in what he does not want- a union. I find that on March 12, 1965, the Union was designated as bargaining representative by a clear majori- ty of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit.4 The Respondent argues further, however, that even if a majority of the employees had knowingly designated the Union to represent them, the Respondent had good reason to doubt that the Union had attained such a mea- sure of success. This assertion of good-faith doubt is premised in substantial measure upon the appraisal of em- ployee sentiment made by General Manager Fink and Su- perintendent Howland about March 15 or 16 after hear- ing unsolicited comments from employees about their 4In his Decision and Direction of Election after hearing upon the representation petition filed by the Union on March 22, the Regional Director found the appropriate unit to be All production and maintenance employees employed by the Em- ployer at its Los Angeles, California , plant, including the production liaison employees, inspectors, inspector trainee, and draftsmen tool; but excluding all office clerical employees, professional employees, guards, watchmen and supervisors as defined by the Act. LABOR RELATIONS BOARD feeling toward the Union and listening to the reports relaying such employee comments from lower super- visors. Based upon this information, Fink concluded, about March 15, that 40 employees were opposed to the Union, 27 favored it, and 27 were undecided. Although I do not credit the testimony of Respondent's witnesses that employees were not questioned about their feelings toward the Union and later in this decision will set out specific instances of interrogation in this field, I think that the lack of good faith on the part of Respondent was demonstrated even before the Union made any demand upon it. It will be recalled that on March 8, most of the employees were given a wage increase. Of course it was the Respondent's right to review its wage structure at any time it chose to do so and to take whatever action that it thought best. Fink testified that he had reason to believe in December 1964 that Respondent's wage rates might require adjustment, but action to bring this matter to deci- sion was desultory. Not until late February were com- parative wage data gathered and not until early March was decision reached about the wage changes. Consider- ing Respondent's knowledge of the efforts by the Union to organize its employees, I think it to be no coincidence that the wage rates were made effective on March 8. I find that the Respondent used the device of the wage raise to dilute whatever interest in the Union had been en- gendered among its employees. I think that any doubt concerning the purpose and in- tended effect of the wage raise is resolved by the action of President Weitzel on March 9 in directing the em- ployees to form a grievance committee to deal with him and suggesting that in this fashion employee problems could be solved within the plant without outside inter- ference. The wage raise and the formation of the Grievance Committee took place of course before any de- mand for recognition had been made upon the Respond- ent. These actions were taken, I am convinced and find, for the purpose of persuading the employees that a union was not needed and bespeaks a fear that the Union was achieving some measure of success in its organizing goals. Perhaps not wholly assured by the mathematical com- putations the Respondent undertook in connection with its appraisal of union sentiment, it persisted in telling them that the selection of a union was the road to disaster. On May 12, as has been stated in a letter to individual employees, General Manager Fink said, in effect, that three employers, Falco, Mars, and Alba Engineering had gone out of business because the Union had organized their employees. On the witness stand in this proceeding, Fink confessed that he had no knowledge of what cause these enterprises to cease existence. The letter from Alex Skulsky distributed to employees a day or two before the election, describing the fate of Falco, was solicited by President Weitzel. There is no evidence in this record to establish that the assertions in that letter concerning the reasons for Falco's discontinuance are valid. Weitzel did not testify nor did Skulsky. Fink, as has been said, had no This finding constituted a rejection of the contention of the Respondent voiced at the representation hearing and again before me that employees of all similar employers in Southern California should be within the unit's reach. However, no appeal was taken from the Regional Director's unit finding and the question may not now be relitigated In any event, the unit described is clearly appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. I so find it to be. MECHANICAL SPECIALTIES CO. 159 knowledge about the matter. So the Respondent deliberately sought to plant fears in the hearts of its em- ployees based upon alleged business disasters which it could not substantiate. I find that the Respondent at no time took an introspective view to discover whether it had a good-faith doubt or a doubt of any sort concerning the majority status of the Union. The Respondent saw the Union as a threat to its way of dealing with its employees. The thought that the employees might desire to have union representation was not acceptable. Alfred Cantrell, a machinist on the night shift, testified that in early March General Manager Fink asked him if he would divulge the names of other employees who had attended the February 28 organizing meeting. Fink added that he would like to have a "little kickback" on the union campaign. Cantrell answered that the Union was trying to learn if the employees wanted to have representation and, in answer to Fink's question, said that he favored it. Cantrell declined to say who had attended the meeting. Fink testified that he knew of the Union's campaign but that Superintendent Howland had reported to him that the intensity of union activity was not "alarming." On March 12, Fink conceded, he asked Cantrell if there was truth in the rumor afloat about a union. Cantrell answered that he had attended union meetings and that he believed unions to be beneficial but that none was needed in the Respondent's shop. Fink denied making any inquiry on this occasion about who attended meetings or asking for any "kickback" on union activity. I credit Cantrell. Respondent's officials, Fink prominent among them, were eager to learn of the Union's progress. The proba- bility is that Fink questioned Cantrell as the latter testified. Also in early March, according to Cantrell, Berno brought a stranger to his work station and introduced Cantrell as the strongest union man in the plant. Cantrell then had a conversation with the stranger who questioned him about his attitude toward the Union. Berno testified that the "stranger" was his friend, Howard Schwartz, a university professor, who asked Cantrell something about the work that Cantrell was performing on the milling machine. While Schwartz and Cantrell were conversing Berno left. Later he learned that Cantrell had told Schwartz that the shop was a good place to work but that a union was needed in the area. Berno denied that be mentioned the Union when he introduced Cantrell and testified that he was unaware at the time what Cantrell's attitude toward a union might be. I credit Cantrell. This rather slight incident is not one which would probably result from inventive imagination. From Cantrell's stand- point he had really nothing to gain by the acceptance of his testimony. The record is clear that he was a union sup- porter and that his attitude was well known to the Respondent. It does, however, affect Berno's credibility. I was convinced as I heard him testify as I am now that what he told from the witness stand was what he thought might serve to absolve the Respondent of unfair labor practices. Irving Klein, a toolmaker who was an active supporter of the Union during the campaign, testified that in mid-March Superintendent Howland asked him what he thought the Union could do for the Respondent. Klein an- swered that the function of the Union would be to help the employees rather than the Employer. Howland then commented, according to Klein, that the Respondent was faced with three choices: (1) To bargain with the Union, (2) to fight, or (3) to close. Later in the month, Klein testified, Howland told him that there must be no cam- paigning during working hours and commented, "You don't look like a professional organizer." Early in April, Klein recalled, Howland said that a union would make it impossible for the Respondent to compete and would thus drive it out of business. Furthermore, Howland con- tinued, the Respondent would not be permitted to give compassionate treatment to aging employees; could not assign them to less arduous or demanding duties. Howland testified that he criticized Klein in March for talking too much on the job and did say that Klein did not have the appearance of a professional organizer. Howland denied saying anything about a possibility that the Union would not permit the Respondent to assign work as it had in the past. He made no mention of the three choices open to the Respondent about which Klein testified. The only portion of Klein's testimony directly denied by Howland is that relating to job assignment. In testifying about this Klein was able to remember the names of the three employees which Howland chose as examples. I think that Klein's recollection is both accu- rate and complete. I credit his testimony. Perhaps it is ap- propriate to comment at this point that I thought Howland to be in many respects a credible witness. Only when the rub was strongly against the grain of Respond- ent's interests did his testimony appear to me to be somewhat less than truthful. All of the supervisors who were called to the stands testified that they were instructed not to question em- ployees about their union attitudes or activities and that this instruction was followed. Robert N. Woods, the chief ;nspector, testified that in late February Howland told him that there was a lot of union activity in the shop and asked Woods to keep his eyes and ears open as Howland would like to know what was going on. Other supervisors testified to the same effect. The testimony of the super- visors is that employees volunteered their feelings about the Union and that this intelligence was passed up through channels to General Manager Fink. However, a number of employees, Cantrell, Klein, Kirk Reigler, Jackie Virgil, Anders Ahlstrom, and Thomas Booze testified that either Fink or Howland or a lesser super- visor asked them if they had signed a card or attended a meeting or favored the Union. I credit this testimony to the effect that at least some of the employees were sub- jected to questioning about the Union. Knowing that Howland desired such information it is highly likely that the supervisors sought it out for him in the simplest and most direct way- by questioning those under their super- vision. I find that in late February and in March the Respond- ent questioned some of its employees concerning their interest in the Union and that, because some of this questioning was in a context of threats that a union might force the Respondent out of business, it constituted inter- ference with, and restraint and coercion of, employees in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. Throughout the period preceding the election, as has been detailed above, the Respondent sought to implant 5 With the exception of Franz Isak , general foreman He testified that he asked employee Kirk Reigler how he felt about the Union Another ex- ception is Leadman Zeman. His testimony that he reported to Howland what he could get out of an employee named Osdale indicates interroga- tion. I do not credit the lame amendment immediately mouthed by Zeman that what he meant to say was that Osdale volunteered information to him. 160 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD the fear that the success of the Union might well mean the destruction of Respondent's business. Obviously the result would be the loss of employment. At the same time the Respondent tried to blunt the appeal of the Union by tactically timed wage increases. Finally it attempted to satisfy whatever desire for representation was being manifested among the employees by prescribing a placebo -the Grievance Committee. That this organiza- tion was wholly the creation of the Respondent is obvi- ous. That its purpose was to divert the interest of the em- ployees away from the Union and to give them an illusion that the Respondent was indeed willing to grant them representation is no less so. Meetings of the committee were called by Fink. Its membership met only in the presence of management. The Respondent created, dominated, and controlled the Grievance Committee. The Respondent thus engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. By the creation and use of the Grievance Committee, by at- tempting to induce the fear that the selection of the Union would result in the closing of the business and the loss of employment, and by using the device of wage increases the Respondent tried to frighten, cozen, and allure the employees away from chosing the Union as bargaining representative. The Respondent thus interfered with, restrained, and coerced employees in the exercise of rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and thereby en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(1) of the Act. Given this complex of circumstances, counsel for the General Counsel argues, the Respondent should be required to extend recognition to and to bargain with the Union even though the election on June I 1 resulted in a vote unfavorable to it. I have found that a good-faith doubt that the Union represented a majority was not a fac- tor in Respondent's rejection of the union bargaining re- quest; the Respondent was determined to avoid bargain- ing and deliberately and consciously committed unfair labor practices so that such a duty would not devolve upon it. The General Counsel's contention could be ac- cepted and implemented summarily if the Act had as its purpose the punishment of those who engaged in unfair labor practices. But what is at stake, of course, is the right of employees to be represented by a bargaining represen- tative of their choice or if they prefer, to deal as in- dividuals with their employer. If the Respondent is or- dered to bargain then the arithmetical result of the elec- tion must be held not to have been a reliable expression of employee choice. If no such order issues, then the designation cards which a majority of the employees signed must be held to be unpersuasive evidence of em- ployee sentiment. Decision must be predicated upon an assessment of what most reliably indicates the desires of a majority of the employees. It is a truism that there is no satisfying substitute for secret balloting conducted under what are sometimes termed laboratory conditions. But such conditions did not prevail and likelihood approaches certainty that the voters carried with them to the polls the uneasy awareness that if they voted for the Union they would not only be saying that President Weitzel did not deserve to keep his business (as he had stated just the day before) but perhaps more importantly would be risking the survival of the business which gave them employ- ment. The latter was the argument around which Re- spondent's campaign against the Union centered. I am convinced and find that the election on June 11 did not reliably reflect the free and uncoerced desires of Re- spondent's employees and I will recommend that it be set aside. I have found that the designation cards signed by Respondent's employees were not obtained by fraud, arti- fice, or misrepresentation. Lacking a reliable alternative gauge of employee sentiment and will, I find that the designation cards signed by a majority of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit establish the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative of such em- ployees. It follows and I find that Respondent's refusal on March 19, 1965, to recognize and bargain with the Union was a denial of employee rights guaranteed in Section 7 of the Act and that the Respondent thereby has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(5) of the Act. Alfred N. Cantrell, a milling machinist on the night shift, was hired in April 1964 and terminated slightly more than a year later on May 11. All of the work that came to Cantrell for milling resulted from the needs of the toolmakers on the day shift. Cantrell was an early and stout supporter of the Union and the Respondent was well aware of this. Superintendent Howland testified that it was his deci- sion to end Cantrell's employment and that he did so sole- ly because the amount of work coming to the milling machine on the night shift was insufficient to justify his continuance. Howland explained that in the spring of 1965 fewer toolmakers were employed than in the com- parable seasons of 1964 and 1963 with the result that the need for a milling machinist on the night shift lessened. Howland conceded Cantrell's competency and testified that the minor criticisms he had voiced to Cantrell on oc- casion were not operative factors in the decision to discharge him. Both Howland and Cantrell testified that in January 1965 Howland offered to transfer Cantrell to the jig bore operation and that Cantrell, expressing his preference for the milling machine, declined the opportu- nity. Cantrell testified that he possessed the requisite competency to do the jig bore work; Howland testified that he was unaware of this, assumed that Cantrell did not have any appreciable experience in jig bore work, and supposed that Cantrell would have to be trained for about 2 years or even longer to acquire the skills of a jig bore man. Near the end of his shift in the early hours of May 11 Cantrell received his notice of layoff from Paul Mansfield, a jig bore operator who was substituting for the absent foreman, Walter Payton. According to Cantrell, Mans- field said something to the effect that Cantrell was not being treated fairly and that the layoff served to convince Mansfield of the need for a union. Mansfield denied that he said anything of the sort. I credit Cantrell. Mansfield signed a union designation card in early March and mailed it to the Union about a month later. It was probably soon after he signed the card, Mansfield testified, that he told his foreman, Walter Payton, that he did not want a union in the plant. No doubt that is what he wanted Payton to think, but his subsequent act of mailing the card to the Union more reliably indicates that until that time, at least, he favored having a bargaining representative. It seems probable to me that Mansfield denied making the remarks attributed to him by Cantrell because he was embarrassed that the Respondent should learn now what his true attitude had been. This resolution does not, however, aid the General Counsel in establish- ing that Cantrell's discharge was discriminatory. The words used by Mansfield do not amount to a concession MECHANICAL SPECIALTIES CO. that Cantrell's union activity contributed to his discharge and even if they are so construed there is nothing to sup- port a conclusion that Mansfield had any part in this deci- sion. From all that appears, he did no more than hand Cantrell a notice issued upon the authority of Howland. In the late afternoon of May 11, Cantrell returned to the plant and spoke to Fink and Berno. He was told that his discharge was occasioned by the necessity to reduce the working force. Cantrell asked how that could be when the Respondent was contemporaneously advertising for machinists. Fink denied that there was any such advertis- ing but Berno corrected him. The Respondent for a period of several days surrounding May l 1 was advertis- ing in the Los Angeles newspapers for "MACHINIST- Jig bore." Fink told Cantrell to take the matter up with Howland. Cantrell left the plant and took no further steps to persuade the Respondent to keep him on. Howland conceded that a jig bore machinist was hired later in May, explaining that he hired an experienced man and that this was a qualification he did not know Cantrell to possess. That the Respondent was actively hostile to the at- tempt of the Union to establish itself as bargaining representative is crystal clear. Given that circumstance, the dishcarge of a competent employee known to be one of those strongly supporting the Union invites scrutiny of motivation. Respondent's need for employees possessing machinist skills no doubt fluctuated and it is a practical certainty that at times it found itself overstaffed. Skilled employees, however, are not always easily recruited and in recognition of this the Respondent pays a bonus of $50 to any employee who is responsible for bringing in a suitably skilled applicant for employment who proves after a probationary period to be acceptable. At the time of Cantrell's discharge the plant was affording substantial overtime to both the daytime and nighttime workers. This arrangement may have developed in part to keep em- ployees content by enhancing their earnings but it is reasonable to believe also that it reflected Respondent's production needs. Howland testified that the flow of work into the plant had lessened in late April and early May with the result that total hours had been reduced by 190 in one week and by 269 in the week following. This would appear to be due at least partially to a lack of sufficient help in the jig bore department. In early May the Re- spondent was advertising for more jig bore machinists. Howland testified that Cantrell was not replaced and that the work he had been doing on the milling machine on the night shift was thereafter accomplished by workers on the day shift. When Howland decided to terminate Cantrell, he knew that Cantrell had performed competently as a milling machinist and that Cantrell preferred such work. At one point in his testimony Howland said, candidly, that he did not know whether Cantrell had jig bore experience. Whether Cantrell in fact possessed the skill and ex- perience to make him acceptable to the Respondent in the capacity of a jig bore operator remains an unanswered question. That in January Howland was eager to have him do jig bore work is evidenced by the fact that after Cantrell had declined the opportunity presented by Foreman Payton, Howland himself questioned Cantrell in an attempt to get him to reconsider. So there is reason to believe that Howland appraised Cantrell as one who 6 Victor Stone, a lathe machinist, who was hired in early April, was laid off on the same date as Cantrell and assertedly for the same reason I have considered this circumstance in reaching my conclusion about Cantrell's 161 had the capacity to do jig bore work. This leaves un- resolved the question of whether Cantrell could take over such work without a substantial period of training. The sum of Howland's testimony is that he just did not know. But he did know that he needed help in the jig bore opera tions, he did know, he said, that he no longer needed a milling machinist on the night shift, he did know that Can- trell was a competent machinist, and he did know that qualified men were hard to find. Cantrell was not a long- time employee but he had worked more than a year for the Respondent and had performed satisfactorily. Howland testified that he had heard earlier that Cantrell had a purpose to return to Tennessee and that he took some comfort from this as it made the task of termination less distasteful. He made no attempt to verify this infor- mation by asking Cantrell about it. For the period of his employment Cantrell worked a 54-hour week and was occupied 90 percent of these hours in milling machine work. On his last 2 days at work he put in 10 and 8 hours, respectively. Although Howland testified that he no longer needed a milling machinist on the night shift, he attributed this development to a grad- ual change in the character of the work Respondent was performing. There is just nothing in this record beyond this to support a conclusion that on May 11 an employee who had been working 54 hours a week abruptly became unneeded. I do not believe that the amount of milling machine work being performed in the plant decreased so suddenly. If it was absorbed by day-shift workers some realignment of duties must have been entailed. Accepting Howland's testimony that no new milling machinist was hired, nonetheless someone had to perform the work which was no longer assigned to Cantrell. I believe that Cantrell was maneuvered out of his job in order to remove a vocal advocate of the Union from the plant and thus to lessen the Union's chance for suc- cess in the election. The reason given for Cantrell's ter- mination, especially with the attendant circumstance that Howland did not attempt to learn if Cantrell could fill the jig bore vacancy, does not ring true. Viewing this discharge in the light cast upon it by Respondent's con- temporaneous campaign against the Union, marked as it was by a variety of threats and allurements intermixed with the establishment of the Grievance Committee, I find that by the discharge of Cantrell the Respondent sought to discourage membership in and activity on be- half of the Union, and that the Respondent thereby en- gaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Sec- tion 8(a)(3) of the Act.6 Irving Klein, a toolmaker, was hired in August 1964 and was discharged on June 25 in the following year. Klein was an active supporter of the Union and solicited other employees to sign designation cards. Effective March 8 he was given a wage increase of 15 centsan hour and when Superintendent Howland told him about this he also commented, according to Klein's uncontradicted and credited testimony, that he considered Klein to be a "top man." On June 21, Klein testified credibly and without con- tradiction that General Foreman Isak said he was not planning his jobs properly with the result that too many hours were being expended on them. Klein replied that he could not be held responsible for the hours used by other discharge. It may well have been that the Respondent had no need for a lathe machinist for a period beginning May 11 (Stone was rehired in July). 162 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD employees. On June 25 Isak told him that he had been "following him around" and that Klein was too slow. Klein was then discharged. Isak was not questioned about the discharge or the warning of June 21. Isak testified that some time in March he told Klein that he was talking too much on the job. It is fairly inferable from Isak's testimony that he told Klein his work was suffering on that account. In the Respondent's shop when a complicated gauge is to be manufactured, a toolmaker is given a blueprint of what is desired and told to get it done. Usually, if not al- ways, the toolmaker is told of the number of man hours estimated to be sufficient for completion. The toolmaker attempts to keep within his estimate or to better it. After determining how the gauge should be built, the toolmaker orders the necessary materials and indicates the work to be done away from his bench. He may do some of the milling or send it to a milling machinist. If jig bore work is entailed, this will be done by someone assigned by the jig bore leadman. When the job is complete the estimated hours become actual hours for which men are paid. If the actual hours exceed the estimate there is a "loss" on the job; otherwise there is a "profit." Obviously, the estimate can be met, lessened, or exceeded depending upon a variety of factors. If the toolmaker working at his bench, the lathe machinist, the milling machinist scraps material or in some other fashion uses excessive hours, waste results. If the estimate is unreasonably low, in all likelihood it will not be met. Under Respondent's system of classifying jobs as profitable or not, only the final result is considered in labeling the work of the toolmaker. If a maladroit jig bore machinist ruins a part on which many hours of work have been expended, the hours are wasted and the job is well on its way to becoming a loser. If, through some brilliant improvisation, a lathe machinist finds a way to save many hours on a job, the probability of showing a profit is enhanced. In neither of the exam- ples postulated does any action or inaction on the part of the toolmaker influence the result. Over a period of years I suppose that it may be possible through this system to find a reflection of a sort of rough justice. The miscalcu- lated estimates and the misfortune of others' mistakes will average out. The more competent toolmakers will show a more consistent pattern of profitable job performance. Superintendent Howland testified that in December 1964 he told Klein that he was losing money on the jobs assigned to him. Respondent's records show that in early December there was an indicated loss of $1,238 on one of Klein's jobs. Thereafter, for a few months, Klein's profit statement was on the credit side. This encouraged Howland, he testified, to give Klein a wage increase in March. In April the loss on a job then completed by Klein was set at more than $3,700. Klein spoke with Howland about this complaining that the estimate was too low. Howland conceded that it was without saying what per- centage of the loss might be attributable to that circum- stance. Klein's profit-and-loss statement thereafter shows an almost unbroken string of losses ranging from $179 to $839. Howland concluded, he testified, that, despite the fact that Klein was a good mechanic and did work of good quality, he did not have the potential to be a valuable em- 7 Counsel for the Union has filed a morally persuasive brief urging that, because the Respondent by resort to unfair labor practices has prevented its employees from having representation for a period now approaching 2 years, a genuine remedy would force the Respondent to give to employees what bargaining would by now have gained for them in the area of wages. I agree that the direction to bargain which is part of this Decision does not turn back the calendar and that the employees are not by virtue of my findings and recommendations compensated for the denial of statutory ployee in Respondent's plant. Klein's discharge followed. I am quite unconvinced that the Respondent used the profit-and-loss calculations to appraise the competency or performance of the toolmakers. The record, in my view, demonstrates their unsuitability for that purpose. My conclusion in this respect is strengthened by the cir- cumstance that when one of Klein's jobs in April showed what surely was a substantial loss, $3,767, Howland voiced no criticism to Klein and, indeed, told him not to worry about it. Howland is a knowing person, wholly familiar, I am sure, with the problems arising in such a plant as the Respondent operates. He no doubt knew why the job showed a loss and he did not lay the responsibility at Klein's door. The small losses which followed in May and June did not move Howland to raise any questions with Klein about his competency. Surely Howland knew who the good toolmakers were, and it is significant that in March, after Klein had been in Respondent's employ for more than 7 months, Howland told him that he was a top man. Howland said that because he believed it, and he was in a position to know. Although the Union lost the election on June 11 by a margin which impelled President Weitzel to write to the employees "to express how thrilled" he was, the Re- spondent could have reasoned that it was not yet finally free of the Union's presence. Objections to the election were filed on June 17. The Respondent had counsel and must quickly have learned that if the objections were sustained another election might be held. Howland had indirectly suggested in March that Klein might be a pro- fessional organizer and, even if he did not believe that Klein was on the Union's payroll (he testified that he did not), he clearly regarded Klein as one who was attempting to establish the Union as the bargaining agent of Respondent's employees. The Respondent had reason to believe that, if the election were to be set aside, Klein would again be among those urging the employees to vote for the Union. Disbelieving Respondent's proffered reason for Klein's discharge, considering Respondent's continuing search for skilled employees, and appraising the discharge in the light of Respondent's unlawful conduct in opposition to the attempts by its employees to obtain representation, I conclude that Klein was discharged to discourage such activity. I find that by the discharge of Klein the Re- spondent engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. IV. THE EFFECT OF THE UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES UPON COMMERCE The activities of the Respondent set forth in section III, above, occurring in connection with its operations described in section I, above, have a close, intimate, and substantial relation to trade, traffic, and commerce among the several States and tend to lead to labor disputes bur- dening and obstructing commerce and the free flow of commerce. V. THE REMEDY7 Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer- tain unfair labor practices, it will be recommended that it rights which they have suffered However, Section 8(d) of the Act forbids me to tell the Respondent that it must retroactively pay the wage rates that would likely have resulted from good-faith bargaining in 1965 and since The Supreme Court has held in words too clear to permit speculation about them that "the Board may not, either directly or indirectly, compel concessions or otherwise sit in judgment upon the substantive terms of collective bargaining agreements." N.L R B v American National In- surance Co, 343 U S 396. MECHANICAL SPECIALTIES CO. cease and desist therefrom and take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies and purposes of the Act. Having found that the Respondent has unlawfully refused to bargain with the Union as the majority representative of its employees in the appropriate unit, it will be recommended that the Respondent, upon request of the Union, engage in collective bargaining with the or- ganization and that any agreement reached be reduced to writing and signed. Having found that the Respondent has dominated and_ interfered with the formation and administration of the Grievance Committee , it will be recommended that the Respondent disestablish the Grievance Committee completely as any sort of bargaining representative of its employees. Having found that the Respondent has discriminated against Alfred Cantrell and Irving Klein by discharging them, it will be recommended that the Respondent offer to each of them immediate and full reinstatement to the positions held before discharge , and that each be made whole for any loss of earnings attributable to discharge. Backpay shall be computed in the manner established by the Board in F. W. Woolworth Co., 90 NLRB 289, and shall bear interest calculated upon the formula adopted in Isis Plumbing & Heating Co., 138 NLRB 716. Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case , I make the following: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Mechanical Specialties Company, Inc., Los An- geles, California, is an employer engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6) and (7) of the Act. 2. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, is a labor organization within the meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act. 3. By threatening the close of the business in the event of union victory in the representation election and by questioning employees concerning their union preferences in the context of coercion, the Respondent has engaged in and is engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 4. All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Los Angeles plant, including the production liaison employees , inspectors , inspector trainee, and draftsmen tool, but excluding all office clerical em- ployees, professional employees, guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the Act, constitute a unit ap- propriate for purposes of collective bargaining within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act. 5. On and since March 16, 1965, the Union has been and now is the exclusive bargaining representative of Respondent's employees in the appropriate unit and is en- titled to bargain with the Respondent in respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. 6. By refusing on March 19 , 1965, and thereafter to recognize the Union and to bargain with it, the Respond- ent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8 (a)(5) of the Act. 7. By dominating and interfering with the formation and administration of the Grievance Committee, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(2) of the Act. 8 In the event that this Recommended Order is adopted by the Board, the words "a Decision and Order " shall be substituted for the words "the Recommended Order of a Trial Examiner" in the notice . In the further event that the Board's Order is enforced by a decree of a United States 163 8. By discriminating in regard to the tenure of employ- ment of Alfred Cantrell and Irving Klein, the Respondent has engaged in unfair labor practices within the meaning of Section 8(a)(3) and (1) of the Act. 9. The aforesaid unfair labor practices are unfair labor practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Sec- tion 2(6) and (7) of the Act. RECOMMENDED ORDER Upon the entire record in the case, and the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law that Respondent, Mechanical Specialties Company, Inc., Los Angeles, California, its officers , agents, successors , and assigns, shall: 1. Cease and desist from: (a) Threatening employees within a curtailment or cessation of operations in the event of a union election victory, questioning employees in a coercive context con- cerning the Union or activities on behalf of the Union, discharging employees because of union membership, preference , or activity, granting wage increases to dilute union interest , or in any other manner interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization, to form labor organizations, to join or assist International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, or in any other labor or- ganization, to bargain collectively through representa- tives of their own choosing, and to engage in other con- certed activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all such activities , except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as authorized in Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. (b) Refusing upon request to bargain with the Union as the exclusive representative of employees in the ap- propriate unit. (c) Giving the Grievance Committee any status as bargaining representative of employees. 2. Take the following affirmative action , which I find will effectuate the policies of the Act: (a) Upon request, bargain with the Union in respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employ- ment and, if an agreement is reached , reduce it to writing and sign it. (b) Withdraw recognition from and completely dis- establish the Grievance Committee as the representative of employees for any bargaining purpose. (c) Offer to Alfred Cantrell and Irving Klein im- mediate and full reinstatement each to his former or sub- stantially equivalent position , without prejudice to seniority or other rights and privileges previously en- joyed, and make each of them whole for any loss of earnings suffered in the manner set forth in that portion of this Decision entitled "The Remedy." (d) Preserve and, upon request, make available to the Board or its agents, for examination or copying, all payroll records, social security payment records, timecards , personnel records and reports, and all other records necessary for determining the amount of backpay due under the terms of this Recommended Order. (e) Post at its plant in Los Angeles, California, copies of the attached notice marked "Appendix."$ Copies of Court of Appeals, the words "a Decree of the United States Court of Ap- peals Enforcing an Order" shall be substituted for the words "a Decision and Order." 164 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL said notice, to be furnished by the Regional Director for Region 31, Los Angeles, Calfornia, after being signed by an authorized representative of the Respondent, shall be posted by the Respondent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained by it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous places, including all places where notices to employees are customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the Respondent to en- sure that said notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. (f) Notify the Regional Director for Region 31, in writ- ing, within 20 days from the date of this Recommended Order what steps Respondent has taken to comply herewith.9 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Board dismiss the petition in Case 31-RC-14 and vacate all proceedings in connection therewith. 9 In the event that this Recommended Order be adopted by the Board, this provision shall be modified to read- "Notify said Regional Director, in writing, within 10 days from the date of this Order, what steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith." APPENDIX NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES Pursuant to the Recommended Order of a Trial Ex- aminer of the National Labor Relations Board and in order to effectuate the policies of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, we hereby notify our em- ployees that: WE WILL NOT attempt to discourage membership in or activity on behalf of International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Im- plement Workers of, America , UAW-AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization of our employees, by granting wage increases , threatening a lessening of work opportunity, or closing of our business, or by discharges , or by any other sort of discrimination relating to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment. WE WILL NOT impose upon our employees any bargaining representative or unlawful substitute therefor and will immediately disestablish the Grievance Committee. WE WILL, upon request, bargain collectively with International Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative of all employees in the bargaining unit described below concerning rates of pay, wages, hours of em- ployment, and other conditions of employment, and, LABOR RELATIONS BOARD if an understanding is reached , embody it in a signed agreement. The bargaining unit is: All production and maintenance employees em- ployed at the Los Angeles plant , including the production liaison employees , inspectors, in- spector trainee , and draftsmen tool, but exclud- ing all office clerical employees , professional employees , guards, watchmen, and supervisors as defined in the National Labor Relations Act. WE WILL offer to Alfred Cantrell and Irving Klein immediate and full reinstatement each to his former or substantially equivalent position and pay each of them with interest for any loss of earnings suffered because of discharge. WE WILL NOT by discharging employees, by grant- ing wage increases , by threatening or predicting loss of work opportunity or plant closure , by dealing with the Grievance Committee , or in any other manner in- terfere with, restrain, or coerce our employees in the exercise of their right to self-organization , to form labor organizations, to form, join, or assist Interna- tional Union, United Automobile , Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, UAW-AFL-CIO, or any other labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in concerted ac- tivities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, or to refrain from any or all of such activity, except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a condition of employment as permitted by Section 8(a)(3) of the Act. MECHANICAL SPECIALTIES COMPANY, INC. (Employer) Dated By (Representative) (Title) Note: We will notify any of the above-named employ- ees presently serving in the Armed Forces of the United States of their right to full reinstatement upon application in accordance with the Selective Service Act and the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, after discharge from the Armed Forces. This notice must remain posted for 60 consecutive days from the date of posting, and must not be altered, defaced, or covered by any other material. If employees have any question concerning this notice or compliance with its provisions, they may communicate directly with the Board's Regional Office, 215 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, California, Telephone 688-5840.